May 27, 2005

George Galloway's Lies, the Oil For Food Scandal, and the Ideology of the Left

Well, that would be the headline if there was justice in this world. Unfortunately, there isn't. Friend of The Jawa Report Clinton W. Taylor has this article in The American Spectator:

On May 17, the Right Honorable George Galloway, MP, gave a blustery and animated performance in front of the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. Pundits conceded he ran rhetorical circles around the plodding, staid Senators who couldn't quite catch him out on his relationship to the Oil-for-Food Scandal. But the Senate tortoises may yet have the last laugh. Mr. Galloway seems to have told a big, fat whopper under oath, and a tech-savvy blogger has dug up some proof.

During the hearing (which, though not released by the Senate, has been transcribed here), Senator Norm Coleman pressed Mr. Galloway about his links to Saddam crony, Oil-for-Food beneficiary, and super-rich businessman Fawaz Zureikat, who was a major donor to Mr. Galloway's Mariam Appeal charity. Did Galloway know Zureikat was trading oil for Saddam? Mr. Galloway responded that:

Not only did I know that, but I told everyone about it. I emblazoned it in our literature, on our Web site, precisely so that people like you could not later credibly question my bona fides in that regard. So I did better than that. I never asked him if he was trading in oil. I knew he was a big trader with Iraq, and I told everybody about it.
On his website? Well, the Mariam Appeal site ( is long gone, the domain name snapped up by Internet squatters, so we'll just have to take Mr. Galloway's word for it, right?

Not quite. There's this nifty thing called the Internet Archive Wayback Machine (here), which takes "snapshots" of websites over time. It works a little like Google's vast searchable cache, sending out an automated "webcrawler" that remembers the HTML code of the sites it encounters. Brand-new blogger George Gooding at used it to find the snapshots of the old Mariam Appeal site and verify whether Zureikat's identity was, in fact, emblazoned thereon. [READ THE REST]

One guess on whether or not Gallaway was lying or not? Trust me, you'll want to read the rest of the article here.

As for George Gooding, he's keeping on top of this. Check his site for updates.

Both Gooding and Taylor make an excellent point: that Galloway was lying. But let me point out the obvious problem in the logic which many of their readers may conclude from their posts--which seems to be the same logic the rest of the right is using in impeaching the character of Galloway and his ilk who benefited from the Hussein regime's kickbacks. If I follow the Right's logic, it goes something like this:

1) Saddam Hussein used lucrative oil contracts to transfer money to various Western officials and UN bureaucrats.
2) The intent of the Baathist dictator's regime was to influence these Western politicians and UN bureaucrats.
3) These Western politicians used their influence to oppose the UN sanctions on Iraq and the later US led war because of these kickbacks.

The problem with this logic is that it attributes the causal factors all wrong. That is, the normal right-wing theory seems to be that Western politicians, such as Galloway, supported ending the UN sanctions because of the kickbacks. It is the standard if you want to know why something happens then follow the money explanation of politics.

While such a hypothesis may sometimes be true, it cannot always be true, otherwise it leaves the realm of theory and becomes a non-falsifiable truism.

Look, people like George Galloway don't need their votes bought by the likes of Saddam Hussein. If you think he supported Husseing because of the money you just don't get it. With or without Hussein's money he would have opposed the UN sanctions and the later US led invasion. It's not the money, it's the ideology.

The ideology of the left divides the world into two groups: the powerful and the weak. It is the forgotten legacy of Marx that he rejected notions of good and evil in favor of a morality of power.

The left is unable to make any other moral distinction. Therefore Iraq is good because it is weak and the US/UK are bad because they are strong. Further, any position taken by any powerful country is seen as bad when such position pits weak countries against the strong.

The left around the world hates America because of her strength. America is bad, mmmmkay, because it is strong.

It is the same reason Galloway and his ilk support the Palestinians over Israel, Hugo Chavez over the democratic opposition, and lavish Fidel Castro with loving adoration.

Castro, Chavez, and Saddam Hussein don't need to buy Galloway's support. Galloway and the rest of the left have already pledged it.

The UN oil-for-food scandal does not represent graft with the intention of buying Western influence. The UN oil-for-food scandal represents money given as a reward to the already faithful.

Support did not follow the money. The money was a reward for support.

In our rush to judgement let us not forget that while blood is thicker than money, to the true ideologue, hate for America is thicker than anything else.

By Rusty Shackleford, Ph.D. at 01:49 PM | Comments |